Again, where are there any inalienable rights in what you posted?By definition something that "ought to be" does not exist.

The "ought to be" is the right. When someone's rights are violated they are claiming that someone should not have done that to them. Through reason we can determine that humans have rights that are intrinsic to being human as laid out above.

Laws are no different. They are also a list of ought to's and ought not's. Do they exist?

Sorry but so far you have not shown any evidence that any "ought to be" is a right.

Again, the evidence are the premises and the conclusion that follows from the premises. A violation of human rights is an action that goes against what a government ought to do as defined in the conclusion.

Laws are not "a list of ought to's and ought not's ",

Yes, they are.

The fact is that throughout history the evidence shows that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights other than those agreed to within a given State, society or culture.

What are these facts?

YOU might reason that certain things "Ought to be" rights, but that says nothing about whether or not those so called rights exist.

I was hoping that you would actually discuss my reasoning instead of bypassing it. We seem to be at an impasse. You keep claiming that there is no evidence. I then post what I think is the evidence. You look past it.

In addition, all of the evidence shows that such rights are neither intrinsic or inalienable . . .

What would this evidence be?

. . . and in fact have been taken away withing various States, societies and cultures.

As discussed before, when a government violates a person's human rights that person does not lose their human rights. You are arguing that by doing 90 mph in a 35 mph zone I have proven the non-existence of speed limits.

I look at what you call evidence and find that it simply supports the posit6ion that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights.

I am not arguing that doing 95 in a 35 speed limit area disproves speed limits, in fact speed limits exist only within and due to the consent of a State, society or culture. There is no right to drive at any speed, rather a speed limit simply says that the State has the right to sanction you should you exceed that speed limit.

The evidence that there is no intrinsic or inalienable right is that States regularly revoke any right you have named so far. The State or society or culture can and does decide just what rights an individual might have.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I look at what you call evidence and find that it simply supports the posit6ion that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights.

How so?

I am not arguing that doing 95 in a 35 speed limit area disproves speed limits, in fact speed limits exist only within and due to the consent of a State, society or culture.

Speed limits seize to exist (whether by consent or otherwise) the second I break them, don't they? That is the argument you are making against natural rights. You are citing violations of natural rights as evidence that natural rights don't exist. That doesn't make any sense.

The evidence that there is no intrinsic or inalienable right is that States regularly revoke any right you have named so far.

States do not have the ability to revoke your human rights. That's the whole point. States can either protect or violate your human rights. They can not take them away. Human rights are a list of things a government should not do. If a government does violate human rights it in no way makes human rights go away, just as doing 95 in a 35 does not make the speed limit go away.

Leaders of governments can be and are convicted of violating human rights. Amnesty International is an advocacy group that fights for human rights in places where governments are violating them, such as in China where they are advocating the release of political prisoners. They do this because no State can take your human rights away.

Amnesty International simply tries to build a consensus and can confer no rights whatsoever.

They are great evidence that no intrinsic or inalienable rights exist.

Rights only exist within the context of a State, society or culture.

The speed limit does not cease to exist when you exceed it because it is still codified by a particular State, culture or society.

The speed limit though is still not related in anyway to a right. In fact it is just the opposite, a proscription. It does not say that you can drive that speed, only that it is not illegal to drive that fast. And again, teh State, culture or society that established the speed limit can change, raise, lower or abolish that particular speed limit at any time.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Amnesty International simply tries to build a consensus and can confer no rights whatsoever.

Human rights are never conferred, so how could Amnesty International give them to anyone? Their entire message is that all humans have rights. Period. If AI did not exist people would still have those rights. If no consensus exists within the government those rights would still exist.

AI's real weapon is shame. They try to make governments look bad in the international community because of their violations of human rights. If governments can just make human rights go away, how are they able to do this? How can they claim that a government is violating human rights if governments are the ultimate authority?

Stealth edit, sorry . . .

They are great evidence that no intrinsic or inalienable rights exist.

How so?

Rights only exist within the context of a State, society or culture.

Of course. I have never argued otherwise. You need at least two humans interacting before rights become an issue.

The speed limit does not cease to exist when you exceed it because it is still codified by a particular State, culture or society.

When I exceed the speed limit I have effectively revoked the speed limit according to your argument. They cease to exist the moment I vioate them.

The speed limit though is still not related in anyway to a right.

But it is related to the difference between existence and violation which is the issue at hand.

And again, teh State, culture or society that established the speed limit can change, raise, lower or abolish that particular speed limit at any time.

Actually, the individual can abolish speed limits according to your own argument. The moment I violate the speed limit it has been revoked just as you claim that human rights are revoked the moment a government violates them.

Speed limits do not cease to exist as soon as you exceed them nor have I ever made such a claim or assertion. As long as the LIMIT (not a right) is codified by some State, culture or society it exists.

Amnesty International can lobby for a State, culture or society to adopt what they believe should be some right, but unless the State, culture or society agrees, it is a non-issue.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Sure I can. All I need to do is violate that right and it is revoked. That is your entire argument. Once a right is violated it ceases to exist.

Speed limits do not cease to exist as soon as you exceed them nor have I ever made such a claim or assertion.

It is the unavoidable consequence of your argument.

As long as the LIMIT (not a right) is codified by some State, culture or society it exists.

It ceases to exist the moment I violate the law, according to your own argument.

Amnesty International can lobby for a State, culture or society to adopt what they believe should be some right, but unless the State, culture or society agrees, it is a non-issue

Violation of human rights is very much an issue. It has been for quite some time. The UN was founded on the idea that human rights are a huge issue, especially in countries that continue to violate human rights.

You fear death. You also know that others fear death, and the actions that cause them to fear death. Therefore, you should not do those things.

One word: Dignitas.

Do you want to die?

No. But many people do.

Your claim (which I quoted) is patently false.

Taq writes:

P1: You fear death.P2: Fear is a very, very negative experience. You don't want to experience fear of death.P3: Empathy allows you to know that others fear death in the same way.P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others.C: You ought not to cause fear of death in others since it is something that you don't want to experience.

That 'argument' is also false.Premise 1 is false - Not everyone fears death. In fact, many people long for it.Premise 2 is false - Many people enjoy being scared. People go on helter-skelter rides because they like being scared by death.Premise 3 is false - Empathy fools you into thinking that other people feel the same way as you do.Your conclusion: worthless.

P1: You fear death.P2: Fear is a very, very negative experience. You don't want to experience fear of death.P3: Empathy allows you to know that others fear death in the same way.P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others.C: You ought not to cause fear of death in others since it is something that you don't want to experience.

Sorry Taq but, setting aside any question as to the truth of your premises, this argument isn't at all valid. One word which is noticeablely absent from your premises is the word 'ought', and yet there it is, sittng bright and bold in the conclusion. Where did it come from?

You need to add in the additional "P5: You ought not to cause in others that which you do not wish to experience"; and then you can logically conclude "You ought not to cause fear of death in others".

Conclusions to a logical argument are nothing but a rearrangement of the premises. If there's no 'ought' in your premises, there can be no 'oughts' in your conclusion.

And yes, there are things that you and I might well agree SHOULD be human rights, but that does not mean that they ARE human rights.

But this is all a human right is - what should be. If you agree that x should be a right, then you've agreed that x is a right.

This whole argument seems a bit pointless to me though. All you're both arguing about is 'do right and wrong really exist'. No, of course not - they're things we make up. But we make them up for good reasons.